Skip to main content

Table 2 Satisfaction Responses with the Technology-Based Intervention

From: Feasibility and acceptability of a technology-based, rural weight management intervention in older adults with obesity

Overall Intervention Mean Range
Overall Satisfaction 4.7 ± 0.6 3–5
Recommend the technology-based intervention to a family member 5.0 ± 0.2 4–5
Helpful for patients living in rural areas 4.9 ± 0.4 3–5
Helpful in assisting in achieving goals 4.7 ± 0.7 3–5
Beneficial and worth your time 4.8 ± 0.6 3–5
Video-Based Satisfaction Measures Mean Range
Satisfaction with video-conferencing device 4.4 ± 1.0 2–5
Video-conferencing assist in achieving goals 4.7 ± 0.6 3–5
Video easy to use without much difficulty 4.5 ± 0.7 3–5
Physical Therapy Mean Range
Program Delivery was useful 4.7 ± 0.6 3–5
Length of session 4.8 ± 0.5 3–5
Number of Sessions 4.7 ± 0.5 3–5
Nutrition Mean Range
Program Delivery was useful 4.9 ± 0.3 4–5
Length of session 4.9 ± 0.3 4–5
Number of Session 4.8 ± 0.5 3–5
Willingness for Remote Intervention N (%) N (%)
Physical therapy 37 (84.1)
Dietitian sessions 40 (90.9)
Location Mean Range
Easier to perform activity 4.1 ± 0.9 3–5
Adequate support for Fitbit 4.2 ± 1.0 1–5
Satisfaction Questions on Fitbit Mean Range
Overall satisfaction with Fitbita (n=2) 4.2 ± 0.9 2–5
Easy to use without much difficulty 4.3 ± 0.9 2–5
Real-time feedback helpful in promoting physical activity 4.0 ± 1.0 2–5
Helpful in achieving your goal 3.8 ± 1.0 1–5
  1. aTable range is represented as “min - max”